Miss Pell says, "Never misspell 'misspell'."
Okay, CNN, you are officially on notice.
I've laughed along with the Daily Show about your funny little quirks and your unbelievable antics. I shook my head when you used a picture of the Balrog instead of the Devil. I sat there unpleasantly amazed at Jeanne Moos every time she opened her mouth.
However, none of those are why you're on notice. For that, I direct you to this article on CNN.com. The headline says it all: "Puush for simpler speling perzists," but you don't leave it at that. No simple headline blitz like that can possibly get across the ironic message you're trying to shove in the reader's face.
So your byline assists like so: "When 'say,' 'they' and 'weigh' rhyme, but 'bomb,' 'comb' and 'tomb' don't, wuudn't it maek mor sens to spel wurdz the wae thae sound?"
But even that's not enough. You apparently thought the public still hadn't caught the joke. So your second paragraph reads, in its entirety: "Eether wae, the consept has yet to capcher th publix imajinaeshun."
Oh, good. So you're on notice, but even then you're not through. Three paragraphs later: "Thae sae th bee selebraets th ability of a fue stoodents to master a dificult sistem that stumps meny utherz hoo cuud do just as wel if speling were simpler."
And then two paragraphs after that: "Americans doen't aulwaez go for whut's eezy -- witnes th faeluer of th metric sistem to cach on. But propoenents of simpler speling noet that a smatering of aulterd spelingz hav maed th leep into evrydae ues."
FOUR MORE PARAGRAPHS DOWN: "Lurning English reqierz roet memory rather than lojic, he sed."
AND FOUR MORE DOWN: "Th cuntry's larjest teecherz uennyon, wuns a suporter, aulso objects."
And another five paragraphs do the same thing. But it's not an escalating affair, like that joke piece about simplifying spelling, where more and more new rules get applied to the words as the piece continues until it looks incomprehensible at the bottom. No, CNN's article alternates paragraphs, as if it wants certain quotes, sources and sentiments to look correct and others to look foolish or childish.
Yes, I understand that those paragraphs are what text would look like if the Simplified Spelling Board had its way, but that kind of message can be gotten across with a sample quote box, separated from the supposedly professional journalism. Would CNN use the same misspelling technique for an article on "Hooked on Phonics" (or rather...)? Would they alternate between English and Spanish in an article on how America is going bilingual? What about a series of ones and zeroes while quoting a source discussing the importance of binary?
Absolutely unbelievable. I feel stupider just having read that thing.
I've laughed along with the Daily Show about your funny little quirks and your unbelievable antics. I shook my head when you used a picture of the Balrog instead of the Devil. I sat there unpleasantly amazed at Jeanne Moos every time she opened her mouth.
However, none of those are why you're on notice. For that, I direct you to this article on CNN.com. The headline says it all: "Puush for simpler speling perzists," but you don't leave it at that. No simple headline blitz like that can possibly get across the ironic message you're trying to shove in the reader's face.
So your byline assists like so: "When 'say,' 'they' and 'weigh' rhyme, but 'bomb,' 'comb' and 'tomb' don't, wuudn't it maek mor sens to spel wurdz the wae thae sound?"
But even that's not enough. You apparently thought the public still hadn't caught the joke. So your second paragraph reads, in its entirety: "Eether wae, the consept has yet to capcher th publix imajinaeshun."
Oh, good. So you're on notice, but even then you're not through. Three paragraphs later: "Thae sae th bee selebraets th ability of a fue stoodents to master a dificult sistem that stumps meny utherz hoo cuud do just as wel if speling were simpler."
And then two paragraphs after that: "Americans doen't aulwaez go for whut's eezy -- witnes th faeluer of th metric sistem to cach on. But propoenents of simpler speling noet that a smatering of aulterd spelingz hav maed th leep into evrydae ues."
FOUR MORE PARAGRAPHS DOWN: "Lurning English reqierz roet memory rather than lojic, he sed."
AND FOUR MORE DOWN: "Th cuntry's larjest teecherz uennyon, wuns a suporter, aulso objects."
And another five paragraphs do the same thing. But it's not an escalating affair, like that joke piece about simplifying spelling, where more and more new rules get applied to the words as the piece continues until it looks incomprehensible at the bottom. No, CNN's article alternates paragraphs, as if it wants certain quotes, sources and sentiments to look correct and others to look foolish or childish.
Yes, I understand that those paragraphs are what text would look like if the Simplified Spelling Board had its way, but that kind of message can be gotten across with a sample quote box, separated from the supposedly professional journalism. Would CNN use the same misspelling technique for an article on "Hooked on Phonics" (or rather...)? Would they alternate between English and Spanish in an article on how America is going bilingual? What about a series of ones and zeroes while quoting a source discussing the importance of binary?
Absolutely unbelievable. I feel stupider just having read that thing.